• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

RJ history?

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
Why did Canadair originally develop the 50 seat CRJ?
Other than the smurf jet, aka BAe146, was another RJ developed before the CRJ?
Was the RJ developed in response to industry requests, or was it a speculative development?
Was the RJ developed to counter an "anti-propellor" move amongst the passengers? or
Was the RJ developed to move 50 pax, quickly over a long distance? (relative to prop airliners)
When introduced, was the RJ advertised as a hub-buster(long-range, low yield routes), or as solely a replacement for propellor aircraft on short routes?
Why was the Rj sold to commuter/regional airlines instead of mainline airlines? or,
Why did the mainlines decide not to operate the RJ?
Any other questions, please ask them.

If you know the definitive answer to any question, please tell us. If all you have is current anti/pro RJ rhetoric, please save it for the other ongoing RJ strings.

regards,
8N
 

Wiggums

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,040
Total Time
.
Here is a good article about regional jets.

RJs are not the first small jets. The DC9-10/20, BAC-111, and F-28 aircraft all carried about the same amount of passengers as newer RJs such as the CRJ700/900 and ERJ-170/190.
 

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
You know, it's sort of funny. Someone posts a question asking why all the fuss about why RJ's are disliked, and the string goes into multiple pages. I pose a few questions that don't require any name calling or controversy and none of the loudmouths have anything to say. I think that people are reacting to the current situation without thinking about how we got here, rhetoric fly's hot and heavy and it's that kind of c rap that got us where we are now. In a situation that just evolved without any particular plan on anyone's part. But we are willing to fight each other about it, pretty sad.

Wiggums, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the 50 seat RJ's.

regards,
8N
 

skydiverdriver

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
869
Total Time
5000+
Enigma,
I think it's funny how you ask people not to start talking about rj stuff in a thread and then decide to do just that yourself!!
 

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
enigma said:
Why did Canadair originally develop the 50 seat CRJ?

Market research indicated it would sell in substantial numbers.

Other than the smurf jet, aka BAe146, was another RJ developed before the CRJ?

Not with any success unless you consider the Fokker to be an RJ.

Was the RJ developed in response to industry requests, or was it a speculative development?

A little of both but mostly on speculation based on solid market research and a relatively low development cost in the case of Bombardier.

Was the RJ developed to counter an "anti-propellor" move amongst the passengers? or
Was the RJ developed to move 50 pax, quickly over a long distance? (relative to prop airliners)

Both.

When introduced, was the RJ advertised as a hub-buster(long-range, low yield routes), or as solely a replacement for propellor aircraft on short routes?

Well my Company introduced it. It wasn't specifically "advertised" as a hub-buster, but was always intended to replace turboprops and extend the "range" of operation by serving new destinations point-to-point and bypassing the hub. The Company's intent was to grow the airline, any way it could.

Why was the Rj sold to commuter/regional airlines instead of mainline airlines?

Because one of them saw its potential and took the risk in spite of multiple warnings from nearly all sources and analysts that it would "break the company". The numbers were right for us. It was actually cheaper to operate than the turboprops and offered much more flexibility and marketing opportunity. It was the intent to replace all the turboprops from day one.

Only after it was proven successful and the "experts" proven wrong, did others scramble to get on the bandwagon. Success breeds competition. Create a money machine and others will be there to copy it asap. If the money machine gets too big, a shark will come along and swallow the goldfish.

or,
Why did the mainlines decide not to operate the RJ?

1) Cost structure. Why invest all that capital and start-up costs and impose an infrastructure that is not economically feasible if you don't have to? 2) Mainline Scope clauses permitted sub-contracting and much lower costs. 3) The main cost problem is not pilot "book rate" wages, its the burden and low productivity of mainline contracts. Its the rest of the airline... the whole top-heavy structure of the mega carriers. 4) They had no need and were more interersted in long range markets and feed. The "feed" was already available from subcontractors and, in our case, we paid for the risk of new market development. All that changed was the equipment operated by those subcontractors.

I don't know if those comments meet your criteria of "definitive" answers. They relate to my opinion as well as my experience as an employee of the US launch airline.

I also know, likewise from personal experience, that the union big wigs acted almost immediately to launch the "tighten Scope anti-RJ campaign" and have pursued it with increasing vigor ever since although forced repeatedly, by market conditions, to relax rigid positions or accept circumvention of the scope clause by more clever managements.

Respectfully,
One of the Loudmouths

PS. My only regret is that my former management's biggest mistake was not going through with the purchase of a certain small airline (where I think you may work). Had we done it we would either be free and quite successful or we'd both be Delta pilots with half of us furloughed. S**t Happens.
 
Last edited:

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
You said it, not me

Surplus1.
Please notice that I didn't name any of the suspected loudmouths. :)
Seriously, you did give answers I was looking for. I was breezing happily along flying a corporate Lear55 when the RJ's were introduced, and I really had no intention to return to airline flying at the time; so I didn't really pay much attention.

I would like to be able to make a cogent argument for the premise that RJ's are not some plot from the Worths, nor the Lorenzos, of the world to screw pilots. I think, and would like to be able to state for certain, that the RJ was a legitimate vehicle to produce profits. The RJ's were just another part of the evolution of the business, and should be dealt with accordingly, not on a personal level that many have stooped to.

Yes, I am a Spirit pilot. I was hired after ya'll backed out of the buyout, so I don't know much about it. I'm not even sure that you all backed out instead of Spirit.
regards
8N
 

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
skydiverdriver said:
Enigma,
I think it's funny how you ask people not to start talking about rj stuff in a thread and then decide to do just that yourself!!

SDD, try actually reading and thinking about my posts in this thread. I believe that you'll conclude that I am looking for common ground, not controversy. Can you say the same? The post that I suspect raised your ire, was the one where I observed how quick some are to flame, yet I post a series of questions and I get almost no response. My response, while somewhat testy, was not controversial in regard to the subject of RJ's.

regards,
8N
 
Last edited:

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Re: You said it, not me

enigma said:
Surplus1.
Please notice that I didn't name any of the suspected loudmouths. :)

Noted, but I'm also a realist. No offence taken. I'm sort of proud of it anyway. Somebody has to yell every now an then, even if few listen.

Seriously, you did give answers I was looking for. I was breezing happily along flying a corporate Lear55 when the RJ's were introduced, and I really had no intention to return to airline flying at the time; so I didn't really pay much attention.

I'm glad you found the answers of interest. I think most pilots in the large airlines were also "not paying much attention". It's unfortunate that many of them would now like to compensate for their lack of attention by threatening my job and future.

I would like to be able to make a cogent argument for the premise that RJ's are not some plot from the Worths, nor the Lorenzos, of the world to screw pilots. I think, and would like to be able to state for certain, that the RJ was a legitimate vehicle to produce profits. The RJ's were just another part of the evolution of the business, and should be dealt with accordingly, not on a personal level that many have stooped to.

I think your premise is accurate. The airiplane is just another business tool made available by evolving technology. It fills a gap that was vacant and will be here to stay until replaced by a better tool. That better tool will not be a DC-9 nor a 737. It will be a better and bigger "regional jet" and it will be flown by the same people that are now flying the current version.

I can assure you with absolute certainty that my company did NOT decide to introduce the RJ in an effort to screw pilots, and none of Comair's pilots were "screwed" as a result. The exact opposite is true, we benefited greatly and so did the Company. The decison was a decision of Comair management exclusively, not motivated by some external force and funded by our own money. We made the decision and we took the risk. Obviously, our executives were not wrong.

The intent was definitely to increase profits, provide growth and get the jump on our competition. That intent was accomplished in each instance.

Contrary to be belief of many, we didn't take any flying from anyone. We developed new markets on our own, grew our own Company and became "the" most profitable airline in the business (in this country). Prior to our acquisition by Delta, Inc., approximately 60% of our passengers never set foot on a Delta airplane. The other 40% was feed.

The marketing agreement with Delta was of course mutually beneficial. However, we could have done it with someone else, just as readily. We did not spend Delta's money to do what we did. They paid us for what we did for them and we paid them for what they did for us. Both benefited from the agreement. They did not buy us because we were failing. They bought us because we were too successful to continue outside their sphere of control and would not agree to their "fee per departure" gimmick. Essentially they had two choices, buy us or do without us. Which one they took is self evident. While it was true that the "tail" wasn't going to wag the dog anytime soon, it was also true that the particular dog couldn't live with a severed tail, so he spent a couple billion to guarantee it wouldn't fall off.

Now that we are a subsidiary of a large company, I have no idea what the plans or intent of our new owners/managers might be, but I suspect it has nothing to do with screwing pilots at Delta Air Lines. That is a figment of their vivid imagination.

The fact that major airlines did not acquire regional jets to be operated by the "mainline", is IMO, directly related to economics and the premissiveness of mainline pilot groups. They made a fatal decision to allow subcontracting (long before the RJ existed). When the RJ came into existence, they decided it was a "threat" and directed the union (which they control totally) to adopt a policy designed to prevent its use, rather than embrace it. That policy took the form of increasing Scope restrictions. Up to a point, the "new Scope" was effective, in the sense that it prevented the operation of this aircraft type by the mainline itself and therefore, did not dilute the average compensation of the mainline pilots.

However, it also had a down side that so far has proven to be far more onerous than sharing drinking fountains with the "other" class. The new Scope was totally ineffective in preventing the proliferation of the aircraft type and also created a two tiered structure within the union, effectively dividing it against itself. Repeated opportunities to correct that problem were repeatedly ignored. Market forces continued to ensure ever increasing numbers of RJs. If you didn't fly them, you couldn't compete with Comair. Everywhere we went, we took the market share of those who did not operate them. It did not take long for management of other carriers to recognize that fact and begin to acquire RJs at their subcontractors or wholly owned subsidiaries. It took Bethune 4 years to wake up, but look how many he has now.

Those large carriers whose pilots were able to negotiate the new Scope, before management saw the light (such as USAir) have suffered the consequences. Since that time, each time a mega airline sits at the bargaining table the RJ issue is there, either as a result of the pilots desire for more Scope or the management's desire for less. Every major airline with highly restrictive Scope has been forced to relax it at the bargaining table. AA has yet to "give" so AMR is simply finding innovative ways to circumvent it. Reverse code-share may well prove to be the fatal blow.

The Delta pilot group was derided within the union for years because it's Scope was allegedly too loose. That looseness has given their Company the best balance sheet of the mega carriers, but they still don't "get it". When their management decided to acquire ASA and CMR, they were already "at the table" and bargaining to "tighten Scope". They had an opportunity to change their flawed scope strategy from one of exclusion to one of inclusion, but adamantly refused to do so. Instead, their MEC succumbed to the political pressure of their peers in the union, and the union itself, succumbed to political pressure from them, abdicating its responsibilities to other members in the process. As evidenced, the strategy failed and they did not succeed in returning the Genie to the bottle.

Recent events at USAirways have further demonstrated the futility of the exclusion strategy. The RJs over there will now outnumber the mainline aircraft and the price the union and the AAA pilots are paying is far higher, IMO, than it could have been or should be. Once more, the prejudices of the mainline pilots have set a course that is not in their own interests or that of anyone else. They have also put the union in a precarious and vulnerable position as it steps on more regional pilots. Not only have they lost the RJ battle, they are opening the door to the same "code-share" concept that will ultimately cause them to lose the "big" airplanes they have remaining. Instead of protecting their flying they are in fact giving it away. I predict another TWA and think it a question of when, not if.

What Woerth's personal opinions might be, I don't know. He's a politician and to keep his job, he must acquiese to the demands of the big 5 MEC's. Together, they may well destroy the union as we know it. They may be able to defeat the small pilot groups and screw those members in the process (that's what they're doing), but they can't stop the RJs or the market forces. Instead of containing the subcontracting, their flawed thinking is actually increasing it. Apparently the mega pilot groups would like the regional pilot groups to bare the brunt of their own folly. That may work for awhile, but its not an enduring condition. If it continues too long, they may well lose much of the current narrow-body flying, to the lowest bidders. Life without ALPA is far from impossible.

Management isn't trying to screw the mainline pilots. They're just trying to make a buck any way they can and many of the mainline pilots have priced themselves, egoed themselves or both, out of the market.

Obviously, there are those who differ with me. Interestingly, all of them fly for mega carriers. I suspect that their vision is clouded by fear which has been projected as protectionism via isolation. It is not unusual for the nouveau riche to see themselves as people of a "higher class". That will backfire, again as a result of market forces. When the market changes, those who change with it prosper. Those who don't risk falling by the wayside. Time will tell who among us has the right thinking on this.

Yes, I am a Spirit pilot. I was hired after ya'll backed out of the buyout, so I don't know much about it. I'm not even sure that you all backed out instead of Spirit.
regards
8N

I suspected you were. I'm quite sure who backed out (since I've seen the purchase agreement). What I'm not really certain of is why. I know the "official" reason, but I suspect another reason under the table. I still think it was a mistake to back out. It may or may not have prevented us from being acquired (something I would personally have prefered), but as pilots I think we'd be better off either way over the long haul.

Best regards
 

FlyDeltasJets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
664
Total Time
6000 +
Re: Re: You said it, not me

surplus1 said:
It will be a better and bigger "regional jet" and it will be flown by the same people that are now flying the current version.




--------------Not in Delta colors. If it's bigger, it will be flown by Delta pilots.



Contrary to be belief of many, we didn't take any flying from anyone. We developed new markets on our own



------------Surplus, your facts are normally accurate. This is not. I can name you literally dozens of markets which were once mainline that have been replaced with rjs.




Management isn't trying to screw the mainline pilots. They're just trying to make a buck any way they can and many of the mainline pilots have priced themselves, egoed themselves or both, out of the market.




-----------Apparently, you have done the same in Florida.

[/B]


Surplus,
While I have enjoyed our discussions, we seem to rehash the same points over and over. I therefore have limited my debating a bit. The above three points, however, begged for comment!

Hope you are well.
 

skydiverdriver

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
869
Total Time
5000+
Enigma,
You didn't raise my ire, as I just pointed out that you were making fun of people who flame at your posts, while flaming them at the same time. That is all. I do read your posts, and I also try to find common ground. I find, however, that the only way you can find common ground is for me to agree with you. Perhaps I'm the same way, but I dont' think that insulting me is a good way of going about it. I have never done that to you, but if you think it's a good strategy, then please, continue.

One question, would someone please explain a "reverse code-share," to me? I am still one that is willing to learn something new. Thanks in advance for the assistance.
 

AAflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,493
Total Time
9000+
Not sure what areverse code share is, but I suspect seeing this first hand:

A number of seats can be flown (ASM) at a regional or affiliate under the code share. In our caseTSA, or CHA as well as Corporate Air can fly with an AA designator. If the ASM cap is exceeded they must stop. Mainline could then take the AA codeshare off of the airline like Corporate but match up flight schedules for the pax to connect but no AA on the flight number, they can maniplulate these at all airlines flying the AA designator to suit what they need.

AAflyer
 

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
skydiverdriver said:

One question, would someone please explain a "reverse code-share," to me? I am still one that is willing to learn something new. Thanks in advance for the assistance.

At the risk of proving myself to be the lame brain that many already believe me to be, I'll try.

"Reverse code-share" is a coined phrase. It's a new gimmick in the code-share game. "Conventional code-share" would be its opposite. Both devices are designed to circumvent Scope. AMR is the first to come up with the "reverse" concept. The whole code-share concept has variations in the international and domestic markets. I'll refer only to the domestic variety.

Conventional code-share can take two formats. Mainline - mainline. Mainline - regional.

In the mainline/mainline deals it doesn't matter which of the two airlines use the other's code, they still call it simply code-share.

Regional airlines are special though, and mainline pilot contracts don't deal with regional carriers the same way they deal with other mainline carriers. There are lots of artificial restrictions that apply to the relationships between major airlines and regional airlines, all imposed by mainline pilot contracts.

Until recently, no mainline flight has ever operated using a regional carriers "code". AMR has started doing this because it is not covered by the AA pilot contract, which is currently imposing penalties on AMR that it can't live with.

To avoid these penalties, AMR is making agreements that will place the regional carriers code on the mainline flights, instead of the mainline code on the regional flights. This procedure avoids the artificial constraints of the AA contract and allows AMR to operate the flights it needs.

So instead of putting the AA code on TSA originating flights, they will fly under the TSA code, so will any connecting flights that take place on AA itself. CHQ flights will operate with the CHQ code and the connecting AA flight will do the same. They can still call it AA Connection and bypass the Scope without a violation of the artificial restrictions.

Since the "mainline" is now operating under the regional's code, instead of the regional operating under the mainline code, they decided to call it "reverse code share".

It's the same thing, just a different name. Much like pretending that Comair and Delta are "separate", when they really aren't.

The AA pilots will probably grieve this. Maybye they'll win and maybe they won't. Until it is settled, AMR can operate the flights it needs. The AA contract does not impose limits on American Airlines operating with the code of another airline. It does impose limits on other airlines operating with the AA code.

It's a clever move on the part of AMR. While I don't know who came up with this idea, I could make and educated guess but prefer to keep that to myself.
 

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Re: Re: Re: You said it, not me

FlyDeltasJets said:


Surplus,
While I have enjoyed our discussions, we seem to rehash the same points over and over. I therefore have limited my debating a bit. The above three points, however, begged for comment!

Hope you are well.

FDJ,

Very true. Of course that is only because you keep insisting on the same wrong ideas. (LOL) I'm just trying to get you up to speed but you're a slow learner.

I noticed you were sort of avoiding me but I wasn't offended. I figured you were just weary of your efforts to convince me and my unwillingness to accept error. (Just pulling your chain a little). I don't blame you at all, we've been at it for months so we pretty much know where the other guy stands. Your tune hasn't changed and neither has mine. SO, you're wrong and I'm right! Did I get that right? Or, is it I'm right and you're wrong?

Just kidding ya my friend. We have to smile every now and then even in the worst of times.

I'm fine thanks. Frustrated sometimes, but hanging in there. I hope things are going ok for you as well and the ordeal will be over soon.

I'm very worried about this code-share talk though. I hope you all don't agree to a mainline/mainline code-share. If you do, furture growth for your side of the operation will be a long time coming. Do that and in a few years you'll be having the same quarrel with whomever your new "partner" turns out to be, that you are now having with us. In my dictionary code-share and subcontracting are synonyms.

Take care and don't hesitate to yell at me when you feel the need.

Regards,
Surplus1

PS. I'm gonna let you slide with most of those off base replies, this time. The light will come to you my son.

On the marketing part, I was refering mainly to the era preceding Delta's purchase of Comair. In the current time frame, some of your flying has indeed been replaced. I think we both know the real reasons. I'll also say that when your equipment replaces Comair's on certain routes, which it has many times in the past, we didn't feel we were being "replaced" by you. That's the business we are in and that is how it is supposed to work.

It is not our fault that the current market can't justify your equipment in some places and can justify ours. It's not your fault either and we shouldn't be balming each other or the Company for trying to minimize the stagering losess that are definitely coming from your side of the operation. We are making money and that money is paying both our bills. We just can't make enough to carry all of your losses. I wish we could. IF we could, you'd still be working as are many of your peers that would otherwise be joining you. We are an asset, not a liability. You may not agree, but we have always been.

It's a package deal and we are a part of the package. Without that part, you'd be hurting a lot more than you are today.

You can't pick and choose parts of the package that you like one day and not the next. Neither can you take our part of the package and make it yours. We come with it.
:cool:
 

FlyDeltasJets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
664
Total Time
6000 +
Not just avoiding you, Surplus, avoiding the board in general.


First of all, please stop talking about your "package!"



We agree on the codesharing thing. Makes me very nervous. I really don't know the answer, however. There is no doubt that U/UAL now has a major advantage over us now. In other words, the line has been breached, and I hope we are not left out to dry. DALPA should have held the line on scope years ago. We did not, but U did. We are seeing today what their courage got them. I don't want to be in a competitive disadvatage, but I also don't want to see ALL of our flying outsourced. It is an interesting issue, and one that you can be sure I will study very closely. Right now, I don't have all the answers (ever think you'd hear me say that?)


P.S.
You are still wrong.

P.P.S.
Your response to this will be wrong too! (but long!)

PPPS
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 
Last edited:

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
FlyDeltasJets said:

First of all, please stop talking about your "package!"

Hey, you can talk about my RJs all you want but leave my package alone. It's a good package and I'm proud of it!

Right now, I don't have all the answers (ever think you'd hear me say that?)

You not have all the answers? You're wrong AGAIN. When are you gonna learn?

Seriously, the code share thing is dangerous. I think the U pilots have written their own siren song. I agree WE have to stay competitive. There are better ways. Think about it.

Regards,

PS. I did think I was wrong once and admitted it, but I made a mistake. I was actually right all along. :)
 

FlyDeltasJets

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
664
Total Time
6000 +
surplus1 said:


Seriously, the code share thing is dangerous. I think the U pilots have written their own siren song. I agree WE have to stay competitive. There are better ways. Think about it.






------------Believe me, I am.



PS. I did think I was wrong once and admitted it, but I made a mistake. I was actually right all along. :)


So weren't you wrong by thinking you were wrong when you were actually right?

(And they say we pilots have big egos!)
 

DaveGriffin

Registered Self-Abuser
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
569
Total Time
5 yrs
Will management offer "seats for jobs" to the Delta MEC for their support of code share? It's not really that much different than "jets for jobs".
 

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
skydiverdriver said:
Enigma,
You didn't raise my ire, as I just pointed out that you were making fun of people who flame at your posts, while flaming them at the same time. That is all. I do read your posts, and I also try to find common ground. I find, however, that the only way you can find common ground is for me to agree with you. Perhaps I'm the same way, but I dont' think that insulting me is a good way of going about it. I have never done that to you, but if you think it's a good strategy, then please, continue.

One question, would someone please explain a "reverse code-share," to me? I am still one that is willing to learn something new. Thanks in advance for the assistance.

SDD, Maybe you're correct. Maybe I'm inconsistent. That's one reason that I choose name myself "puzzle". Or maybe you're just a contrarian, and like to give a negative reply to my posts. I think both actually.

I stand by what I posted, with this one addition. I don't consider asking you read and think about my posts as an insult to you. If I wanted to be insulting I wouldn't be veiled about it. Sarcastic, maybe, testy, maybe, but not cowardly.

Here is the passage I wrote, that you originally and apparently found fault with: "You know, it's sort of funny. Someone posts a question asking why all the fuss about why RJ's are disliked, and the string goes into multiple pages. I pose a few questions that don't require any name calling or controversy and none of the loudmouths have anything to say. " Where did I flame anyone in that passage?

You wrote: "Perhaps I'm the same way, but I dont' think that insulting me is a good way of going about it." Sorry bud, but I never mentioned you nor any other specific person in any manner. Not in some sideways insinuation, nor in any veiled way. It may insult you, but SDD was not on my mind when I wrote that. Sorry. Me thinks you protest to loudly. I ran something up the flagpole and you saluted. Who really labeled you a loudmouth? me, or you?

enigma

That's my defense. I'm done. You're welcome to the last word.
 
Last edited:

Kaman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
947
Total Time
8.2
Early "RJs"

Hello,
Looking back at airline history, it is obvious that the "RJ" concept is hardly anything new. What is new is the timing and the thought process behind it in today's world. Back in the mid-1960's, Boeing and Douglas both introduced the DC-9-10 and Boeing 737-100. However, at the time a large number of rgional carriers were in business (Trans Texas, Ozark, North Central, etc...)and they operated them for many years. These airlines were eventually swallowed up by the "big airlines" during the merger crazed late 70's and 80's.
The service that the early regional airlines differed little from what the regional jet operators of today offer, except for the flashy paint job identifying it's partnership with "XYZ major airline". Sadly, what is different is the corporate culture of modern airlines that no longer have aviaiton pioneers, pilots or aviation-minded people in the head office. The CEOs of today didn't come by their positions thru the sweat of their brow as much as their slick lawyer tricks. Gordon Bethune being the exception to this, at least in my opinion.
All this talk of RJs and the dissent that it has caused in the pilot community must make those fellows smile from their perch in corporate HQs. Speaking of that, have you noticed that most airlines no longer have their head office located on the field any longer? That should tell us something about upper-level management. In management's eyes, airplanes are merely the vehicle that gets the fare paying passengers to their destination. Pilots, mechanics and all other required employees are nothing more than a necessarry evil.
Hopefully, there will be a rennaisance of the certificated regional carrier like the Air New England I grew up around. Perhaps, like-mined aviation people will take back their own industry and return to a level of service, pride in profession and kinship with the flying public that the old regionals once had.
Hang in there folks...

Regards,

ex-Navy rotorhead
 

bobbysamd

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
5,710
Total Time
4565
RJ v. Regional history

I appreciate Kaman's comments, above, and Wiggums' link to RJ history.

Further to Kaman's post, scope and reverse-code share aside, all of this is repetition of airline history. There have always been "regionals" and "mainlines." Let's go back even forty or fifty years ago and we hear the terms "feeder" and "trunk" being thrown about. So, what were the early "RJs"? Well, they weren't pure jets. RJs are a reflection of evolving technology.

A great example is the early (I mean 1940s and '50s) Frontier Airlines. The following is a wonderful website on Frontier's early history: The Frontier Airlines History Page Early Frontier newspaper ad

Review of this history shows that Frontier was a regional that comprised the merger of three other regionals (hear that, Mesa?). Equipment? DC-3s. Fast-forward to 1976. I recall taking a flight on Frontier from Denver to Sidney, Nebraska on a Twotter!

There are others. Southern Airways, a regional, also operated DC-3s. Fast-forward about twenty years. Southern and another regional, North Central Airlines, merged and became Republic Airlines. Technology had advanced. I recall that North Central operated CV-580s. I recall during that same era taking a flight from BOS to BDL on an early RJ, a Mohawk BAC-111.

These examples document that nothing has really changed in the big picture. Instead of 3s feeding DC-7s or 707s, RJs as we know them feed Airbuses, etc.

Moreover, as Kaman notes, management is chortling while pilots bicker, just as did in times of yore. Just a thought to ponder.

Once again, great link to RJ history from Wiggums
 
Last edited:
Top